Dems’ polling lead is smaller than it was in 2018 — when blue wave failed to flip Senate

[tigerred59]

$8 BILLION BAILOUT. ZERO DOLLARS IN THE ACCOUNT.
Trump announced farm aid he CAN’T PAY for at a Kansas rally. Farmers get checks AFTER Election Day.
This isn’t relief—it’s a campaign prop paid for by the war HE started.
I for one am sick and tired of hard working American tax payers bailing out these redneck PRO TRUMP farmers who time after time, vote the GOP ticket only to end up as welfare reciepitents. How many fuckin times must we keep seeing this shit?

 

[T. A. Gardner]

it directly related to energy prices. it is a huge deal for people

and actual conservatives want to see a reduction in spending. Wars do the opposite. Trump has been exposed as just another politician

The opportunity cost of the Iraq war isn't that high. Most of it is sunk costs that would be present regardless of whether it was going on or not. The US military hasn't grown in size so the only real costs are in additional sorties of aircraft, use of munitions--some of which, most, has an expiration date for use before having to be remanufactured--, and losses incurred if the are to be replaced.

One thing that war has provided impetus for is Middle Eastern countries finding alternatives to moving anything through the Strait of Hormuz. In the long run, Iran's ability, or inability, to control that waterway as a shipping route is eroding permanently. Instead, other Middle East nations are moving to build infrastructure to eliminate the need for moving anything through that strait or into or out of the Red Sea.

 

[zymurgy]

The opportunity cost of the Iraq war isn't that high. Most of it is sunk costs that would be present regardless of whether it was going on or not. The US military hasn't grown in size so the only real costs are in additional sorties of aircraft, use of munitions--some of which, most, has an expiration date for use before having to be remanufactured--, and losses incurred if the are to be replaced.

One thing that war has provided impetus for is Middle Eastern countries finding alternatives to moving anything through the Strait of Hormuz. In the long run, Iran's ability, or inability, to control that waterway as a shipping route is eroding permanently. Instead, other Middle East nations are moving to build infrastructure to eliminate the need for moving anything through that strait or into or out of the Red Sea.

I assume you mean Iran, not Iraq?

And having an existing military doesn't make war cheap. Expended munitions and equipment replacements aren't sunk costs.

You're also ignoring the political opportunity cost. The idiotic Iraq War helped pave the way for Obama's election and, ultimately, Obamacare.

Americans have historically been skeptical of foreign intervention. Another unnecessary war only gives organizations like the DSA more political ammunition. That's a pretty substantial cost for conservatives to ignore.

 

[tigerred59]

 

[T. A. Gardner]

I assume you mean Iran, not Iraq?

Yes, typo on my part.

And having an existing military doesn't make war cheap. Expended munitions and equipment replacements aren't sunk costs.

I said as much. However, using an aircraft carrier that would be in the IO regardless is not a cost of the war, only the additional aircraft sorties and munitions are. If you aren't adding personnel over prewar, then there is no additional cost involved there.

You're also ignoring the political opportunity cost. The idiotic Iraq War helped pave the way for Obama's election and, ultimately, Obamacare.

Political and economic opportunity costs are amorphous at best. The Iraq war actually made sense. So in that sense it did create a negative political outcome for the US.

Americans have historically been skeptical of foreign intervention. Another unnecessary war only gives organizations like the DSA more political ammunition. That's a pretty substantial cost for conservatives to ignore.

The Houthi were one half of the problem here. They were, and are, a Iranian surrogate.

Right now, Iran internally is a mess. There really is no central government in control. Instead, the country is divided into three controlling factions depending on location. These only work together at a minimal level. The three are: The 'official' Iranian government. They're the political face of the country but wield little real power internally. Next is the Iranian military. They have some local control and generally cooperate with the official government. But the leadership often acts more like warlords in hording equipment and vying for political power. Then there's the IRGC. These are the crazies. They have real political power and some degree of military equipment. They are also intellectually unstable and unpredictable.

For example, they're the ones causing problems in the Strait at the moment. The official government and military have no real ability to rein them in. So, the IRGC is undermining what the official government and military are doing and in doing so prolonging the war.

 

[tigerred59]

 

[zymurgy]

Yes, typo on my part.


I said as much. However, using an aircraft carrier that would be in the IO regardless is not a cost of the war, only the additional aircraft sorties and munitions are. If you aren't adding personnel over prewar, then there is no additional cost involved there.


Political and economic opportunity costs are amorphous at best. The Iraq war actually made sense. So in that sense it did create a negative political outcome for the US.

The Houthi were one half of the problem here. They were, and are, a Iranian surrogate.

Right now, Iran internally is a mess. There really is no central government in control. Instead, the country is divided into three controlling factions depending on location. These only work together at a minimal level. The three are: The 'official' Iranian government. They're the political face of the country but wield little real power internally. Next is the Iranian military. They have some local control and generally cooperate with the official government. But the leadership often acts more like warlords in hording equipment and vying for political power. Then there's the IRGC. These are the crazies. They have real political power and some degree of military equipment. They are also intellectually unstable and unpredictable.

For example, they're the ones causing problems in the Strait at the moment. The official government and military have no real ability to rein them in. So, the IRGC is undermining what the official government and military are doing and in doing so prolonging the war.

I think we largely agree on the direct costs. It's the political costs you're discounting.

And the Iraq War actually made sense? That's where you lose me. That disaster helped discredit Republicans, paved the way for Obama, and ultimately Obamacare. That's an enormous political price to pay.

And frankly, your description of Iran makes the case against intervention stronger. If its government can't even control its own military factions, what exactly do we expect American military intervention to accomplish?

These wars have consequences well beyond the battlefield. And politically, they're handing ammunition to the very people conservatives claim to oppose.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

I think we largely agree on the direct costs. It's the political costs you're discounting.

And the Iraq War actually made sense? That's where you lose me. That disaster helped discredit Republicans, paved the way for Obama, and ultimately Obamacare. That's an enormous political price to pay.

And frankly, your description of Iran makes the case against intervention stronger. If its government can't even control its own military factions, what exactly do we expect American military intervention to accomplish?

These wars have consequences well beyond the battlefield. And politically, they're handing ammunition to the very people conservatives claim to oppose

The political costs are far less tangible. For example, if the MSM--who overwhelmingly HATES Trump--were pro-Trump and presented this war in a favorable light, the political cost would change. The consequences would change if say, Obama, were the one pursuing this war. The public perception would be different because media would be minimizing mistakes and maximizing praise for success.

Right now, the opposite is happening, and it's plain to see if you bother to look.

Iran took Iraq's place as the progenitor of state sponsored terrorism in the Middle East. Saddam and Iraq used to do this but with his fall now the Iranians are doing it. The only reason they haven't gotten a wider inroad into supporting Islamic terrorism is they are Shiite not Sunni. At some point intervention was going to be necessary. The longer we wait, the worse the problem becomes.

 

[zymurgy]

The political costs are far less tangible. For example, if the MSM--who overwhelmingly HATES Trump--were pro-Trump and presented this war in a favorable light, the political cost would change. The consequences would change if say, Obama, were the one pursuing this war. The public perception would be different because media would be minimizing mistakes and maximizing praise for success.

Right now, the opposite is happening, and it's plain to see if you bother to look.

Iran took Iraq's place as the progenitor of state sponsored terrorism in the Middle East. Saddam and Iraq used to do this but with his fall now the Iranians are doing it. The only reason they haven't gotten a wider inroad into supporting Islamic terrorism is they are Shiite not Sunni. At some point intervention was going to be necessary. The longer we wait, the worse the problem becomes.

You're blaming the media for public opposition, but that conveniently absolves politicians of responsibility for their own decisions.

Americans have a long history of growing disillusioned with foreign wars, particularly when the objectives are unclear and the costs keep mounting. That's not something the media invented.

And even if I grant your premise about media bias, it doesn't change the political consequences. Lost elections don't somehow count less because you dislike the coverage.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

You're blaming the media for public opposition, but that conveniently absolves politicians of responsibility for their own decisions.

No, it doesn't. But a pliant and helping media put a politician in a different light than a hostile and opposed one does. Look at Autopen. It was pretty obvious that he was not fit for the job but the MSM and media in general downplayed his increasingly obvious senility and old age. That resulted in disaster when it could no longer be hidden. On the obverse, that same media plays up every Trump foible and mistake as a world-shattering disaster. That does have an effect, and not a small one.

Americans have a long history of growing disillusioned with foreign wars, particularly when the objectives are unclear and the costs keep mounting. That's not something the media invented.

Americans generally don't care so long as it doesn't personally affect them. Sure, the nattering class of political pundits and such get that way, but it doesn't translate into the general public being that way.

And even if I grant your premise about media bias, it doesn't change the political consequences. Lost elections don't somehow count less because you dislike the coverage.

Media bias does have an effect on elections.

 

[Jade Dragon]

JPP is probably going to need to invest in a shrink and a good crying couch for its MAGA members when all is said and done. We may not have a blue wave, but Trump can't run again, and his brand has taken on more water than a blue whale's gullet. Republicans will need some serious in-house cleaning to get the stank off.

 

[tigerred59]

This is what democrats should have focused on leading up to this damn, election instead of worrying about fuckin immigrants for the last 2 Trump years.

 

[Jerry Mathers]

as the Iran war drags on, I have a very hard time seeing the GOP not get punished at the ballot bot.

its amazing tho. as fuccked up as this administration is.

Dems are still worse.

thats how we know its all a scripted plan.

in an organic naturally occurring world, candidates would have accidentally done better than the dem plan of coordinated sucking ass.

 

[Stone]

The above post =

View attachment 99197

We are EVERYWHERE...........

" All the world is a stage"

 

[Stone]

Remember now,.....the right did not RIG this election. They simply couldn't have because as we all KNOW from the lefts own words it is IMPOSSIBLE to rig a major U.S election. It simply cannot happen and furthermore voter fraud occurs at such a tiny level that in no way could it have any impact on election results. THIS is what we have been told by Democrats and the left in general since 1960 and in fact that message has only gotten louder and more resounding from them with each passing year.

 

[Stone]

Surely Democrats and the left haven't been lying to us all for the last 60 some years have they? Noooooooooooo,....they would NEVER do something like that.

 

[Stone]

Lead Left to believe there is no way they can lose......

They lose......

Fully expect typical left wing reaction,........" burning they're own neighborhoods like imbeciles typically do" = reasonable justification.

Ordo Ab Chao............

 

[Stone]

 

[Truth Detector]

Apparently, this dipshit thinks recognizing a war as a war means supporting Iran and Hamas.

How is this a war? In your own words so we can point and laugh at your ignorance and stupidity.

 

[Truth Detector]

My guess? This pussy lives vicariously through the military. Desperately wants to be perceived as a tough guy, but cheering on other men fighting wars is about as close as you will ever get.

Nothing screams insecurity quite like pretending someone else's courage is your own.

Another stupid “guess” and whiny dumb post from a brainless halfwit with a bad case of stupid.